gatorkram
Spelling and Grammer impared
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
clubs:
 ·Embarq
 ·linode
| BS
Cox already has usage caps for uploading and downloading. It seems to me, if they need to block uploading, then their caps are to high, and we know why they are... Got to keep up appearances, and look competitive with all the other companies caps, which also seem to be to high, as they are blocking too.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 |
|
cork1958
Cork
join:2000-02-26
Fruitport, MI
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Charter Pipeline
| said by gatorkram  :Cox already has usage caps for uploading and downloading. It seems to me, if they need to block uploading, then their caps are to high, and we know why they are... Got to keep up appearances, and look competitive with all the other companies caps, which also seem to be to high, as they are blocking too. So, you'd feel better about it if they dropped the caps down to minimal amount to compensate for bandwidth hogs?
I'm not on Cox, but ANY traffic shaping, on ANY ISP, sucks, if you ask me. I didn't and wouldn't ask to pay for that service!!
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/ |
|
gatorkram
Spelling and Grammer impared
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
clubs:
·Embarq
·linode
| I think you are missing my point.
Its all a bunch of BS...
I know what.... We should blame whoever came up with the idea, that end users didn't need as much upstream as downstream.
Very few ISPs are seeing the writing on the wall, sadly.
With FIOS offering several symmetrical packages, maybe others will see the light.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 |
|
DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
3 edits | reply to cork1958
Huh? They aren't throttling just the "hogs". They hammering all of the users regardless of how much they're using.
And you can't be a bandwidth hog if you have caps. That's the whole point of having the monthly caps. Cox should enforce the cap on anyone they feel is causing them the trouble instead of stopping customers from using legitimate services because Cox is unable to supply the speeds they advertise. |
|
gatorkram
Spelling and Grammer impared
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
clubs: | I agree with you. Seems to me, they can't support the caps they already have in place. Smoke and mirrors.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to DotMac4
said by DotMac4 : Cox is unable to supply the speeds they advertise. The saddest part is that Cox has no problem supplying the speeds they advertise to most of their customers. (at least in the markets in which I'm a customer) They never have, in my experience, although I've read of problems in some markets prior to my becoming a customer there. |
|
DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | P2P users are having problems getting the speeds they advertise.
Cox implementing this...another layer of network management implies that if they don't, they won't be able to supply advertised speeds. Otherwise why do it? |
|
tobycable1
join:2003-02-20
Pass Christian, MS
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to gatorkram
I personally can't see how it'd be profitable to give users that much bandwidth when colocating a server for 10megabits costs well over $100-$200/month, how would you get 15/15 for $69 (which seems to be the price in this area)?
I saw some 30/5's, but apparently I wasn't paying attention very well when checking a bunch of houses for fios potential (as I'm gonna rent a place in the area), as most seem to max at 15/2 or 15/15. |
|
